Opinion: 'Neighbourhood' versus 'Density' in Chinatown

Vancouver neighbourhoods are under siege by densification. If done correctly, a host neighbourhood will survive and prosper. If done without a comprehensive understanding of the area, a host neighbourhood will no longer be recognizable physically, demographically or economically. Its resident culture and amenities will be depleted and altered beyond repair. What is happening in Chinatown is an example of one-dimensional application of density that does not consider the socio-economic, cultural, and amenity characteristics of this unique neighbourhood.

Now, one of the latest density manifestations in Vancouver is experiencing well-justified community push-back. Six years after the Historic Area Height Review that introduced increased height and corresponding inherent density in Chinatown and two controversial rezonings on Main Street, many citizens are saying enough is enough. Residential intensification does not automatically equate with “economic revitalization” if there is no corresponding fit to those who live in the neighbourhood. The old adage “The operation was a success, and the patient died” can well apply to densification exercises that are not matched to their host neighbourhoods.

Hundreds of citizens signed up to speak at a public hearing for the 105 Keefer rezoning, a luxury condo development proposed by Beedie Living, located on a culturally sensitive site adjacent to several important assets, one of which is the Chinese Veterans’ and Workers’ Monument and Memorial Square. The project evoked an unprecedented uproar from citizens of all ages, incomes and races. Some have called this the first significant uprising since the 1960s’ Strathcona freeway fight. Others have called it a pivotal moment pitting Vancouver’s real estate interests against a grassroots community’s culture and way of life. Why such anger? What went wrong? How did we get here in the first place?

It all starts with discretionary zoning, which is Vancouver’s unique permit processing system in neighbourhoods, such the HA-1A area of Chinatown South. In simplified terms: the City of Vancouver can reward projects with development incentives and bonuses, such as additional height and density, if the project demonstrates that it has earned or merits them. This feature of zoning was initially created to promote development excellence and innovation. Contrary to public misconception, although a property owner has a right to develop on their land, in discretionary zoning, it is not their right to obtain development bonuses outright. In Vancouver, such bonuses must be earned.

105 Keefer is located in the HA-1A area of Chinatown South. In 2003, HA-1A zoning allowed a height of 70 feet outright and a conditional height of 90 feet based on “the bulk, location and overall design of the building and its effect on the site, surrounding buildings and streets.” Since 2003, HA-1A zoning has been altered by the city to eliminate the merit test for height and allow an outright height of 90 feet.

In 2011, a compounding error occurred with the rezoning policy for Chinatown South when an ambitious and misguided residential intensification strategy raised the permitted height to 120 feet for this site, and permitted heights of 150 feet for other sites along Main Street. The intent of HA-1A zoning stipulates that any development will “recognize … the evolving activities that make this district an asset to the city be accommodated contextually.” But as heights have been continually raised, the city has lost its leverage to test the merit of the project despite the original intent of the Chinatown zoning.

Many speakers at the 105 Keefer public hearing have made clear what the “evolving activities that make this district an asset to the city” are. The site is adjacent to several important cultural assets, and the surrounding area is home to many low-income families, renters and seniors. However, because the planning tools to test the merits of the development have eroded, the community is merely left with a residential package with 25 senior housing units fully purchased by taxpayers through B.C. Housing, a temporary discounted seniors cultural space, and 106 market condos. In exchange, the developer is looking for three additional floors of luxury condos. The community against the rezoning wonders how many truly affordable senior’s units will be available, whether the form of the building respects the historic character of the neighbourhood, and is highly concerned about potential negative gentrification.

Densification alone is a crude and inadequate planning tool in every established neighbourhood, and especially within the complex socio-economic, cultural and heritage objectives of Chinatown. The fallout of the 105 Keefer project is the outcome of deleted zoning tools that formerly would have allowed the city to properly judge the merits of this project. Discretionary zoning is designed so that the context, character and land use help shape and inform a development, not policy-approved height and density filled up through a pro-forma exercise or via a housing agreement with another government agency. In this case, the city vacated its leverage to keep projects in line with Chinatown’s unique context and zoning policies’ intent.

The 105 Keefer upheaval illustrates the fragility and importance of the city’s neighbourhoods and the soft underbelly of densification in Chinatown and Vancouver. If Chinatown, which is one of the most identifiable and culturally secure neighbourhoods, can be so significantly impacted by densification, then no neighbourhood is exempt. There is much damage possible in a rush to rezone and densify, without a comprehensive understanding of the host neighbourhood, a digestible densification phasing, and an inclusion plan to protect and value the people and amenities of the host neighbourhood that have evolved over time. In this time of hysterical land values, care must be taken to value what will be lost — as much as what will be built.

The 105 Keefer project indicates that the repair of the zoning policies in the HA-1A area of Chinatown South is timely and necessary. The city should revive the original 70-foot maximum outright height with a discretionary 90-foot maximum conditional height. Chinatown requires the lower height limit to protect its unique culture and amenity. The City should not reward projects, 105 Keefer or any future ones, until the neighbourhood concurs that increased densification has truly been earned.

James Lehto was a senior development and policy planner at the City of Vancouver in the 1980s, responsible for administering and writing a number of policies and guidelines for the heritage districts of Chinatown and Gastown. He also wrote the guidelines and policy for site density transfers which would allow for the economic conservation and restoration of buildings, while preserving their heritage massing and context.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.